Ex parte Davis and Sowle

Ex parte Davis and Sowle. Though a C. P. cannot entertain jurisdiction of a cause, on appeal, if the bond be defective ; yet on quashing the appeal for that cause, the parties being before them, they have jurisdiction of the person ; and may award the costs of the motion. On dismissing an appeal as irregularly brought, by Davis and Sowle against Waugh, from a justice’s court to the C. P. of Monroe, the parties being in Court, and the motion being opposed, that Court awarded costs of the motion against the appellants; and now, J. Platt, moved for a mandamus, commanding that Court to vacate the rule, on the ground that they had no jurisdiction for any purpose; and he cited Ex parte Shethar, (4 Cowen’s Rep. 540,) and Ex parte Chryslin, (id. 80;) also Laws, sess. 47, ch. 238, s. 36, p. 295. The motion was not opposed; but [MAJORITY — Per Curiam.] Per Curiam. These parties were before the Court, who, we think, had jurisdiction over their persons for the purpose of costs. Motion denied. In like manner, this court sometimes give costs against one who moves for a mandamus, if the motion be opposed, though it be denied ; and therefore no canso of action be commenced. (Ex parte Root, 4 Cowen’s Rep. 548.)